WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

AB Electrolux v. Abraham Joffe

Case No. DCO2017-0037

1. The Parties

The Complainant is AB Electrolux of Stockholm, Sweden, represented by SILKA Law AB, Sweden.

The Respondent is Abraham Joffe of Jerusalem, Israel.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <electroluxservis.co> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the "Registrar").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on October 5, 2017. On October 6, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 9, 2017, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy" or "UDRP"), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules"), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Supplemental Rules").

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 16, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 5, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on November 6, 2017.

The Center appointed Gökhan Gökçe as the sole panelist in this matter on November 16, 2017. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a well-known Swedish joint stock company, which is a leading and widely-known producer of household appliances and equipment for kitchen and cleaning products and floor care products, founded in 1901. The Complainant states that the trademark ELECTROLUX has been registered as a word and device mark in several classes in more than 150 countries, including in Israel where the Respondent is located and in Turkey. In 2016, Electrolux had sales of SEK 121 billion and about 55,000 employees.

The Complainant has registered a number of domain names under generic Top-Level Domains ("gTLDs") and country-code Top-Level Domains ("ccTLDs") containing the term "electrolux", for example, <electrolux.com> (created on April 30, 1996) and <electrolux.com.tr> (created on August 7, 1997), <electrolux.co.il> (created on June 10, 2004), the Complainant uses these domain names to connect to a website through which it informs potential customers about its ELECTROLUX mark and its products and services. The registration of these domain names predates the registration of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant sent a cease-and-desist letter dated November 9, 2016 to the Respondent and sent a couple of reminders in the year of 2017, however the Respondent did not respond at all to the Complainant's cease-and-desist letter.

The disputed domain name was registered on October 11, 2012. The Panel visited the disputed domain name on November 27, 2017, and observed that the disputed domain name is used in connection with a Turkish-language website advertising technical services for the Complainant's branded goods within Istanbul.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant is of the opinion that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's ELECTROLUX trademarks and the disputed domain name consists of the trademark and the Turkish word "servis" which means "service" in English and the ccTLD ".co" which is for Colombia. The Complainant claims that for the purposes of assessing identity or confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, it is permissible for the Panel to ignore the ccTLD as it is viewed as a standard registration requirement.

Furthermore, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name and has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. In this regard, the Complainant underlines that it has never granted a permission or license to the Respondent to use the trademark ELECTROLUX.

In addition, it is alleged that the Respondent has never used and does not intend to use the mark ELECTROLUX in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services. According to the Complainant, the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to attract Internet users to its website where it offers repair and maintenance services. However, the Respondent does not publish a disclaimer on the website, the Respondent is depriving the Complainant of the opportunity to reflect in Turkish and Israel market in the disputed domain name, and the Respondent presents itself as the trademark owner by using the Complainant's official ELECTROLUX trademark and logo on its website. Therefore, the Respondent does not meet the Oki Data criteria (Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903). The Complainant finds it undeniable that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant's marks prior to the acquisition of the disputed domain name and the establishment of the Respondent's website. Further, the Respondent has made no claims to having any relevant prior rights of its own.

Finally, the Complainant is convinced that the Respondent must have known the ELECTROLUX trademark well before the registration of the disputed domain name. Additionally, the Complainant contends that the Respondent's failure to reply to a cease-and-desist letter sent prior to the filing of the UDRP Complaint supplies additional evidence of the Respondent's bad faith intentions. In addition to these, the Complainant states that the Respondent has been subject to previous domain name disputes. Therefore, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of registering domain names to prevent the owners of such trademarks from reflecting the marks in corresponding domain names. Such behavior is not considered to be in good faith.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

According to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel shall decide in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable and on the basis of the Complaint where no Response has been submitted.

In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the three following elements is satisfied:

(1) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(2) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

(3) The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the Complainant bears the burden of proving that all these requirements are fulfilled, even if the Respondent has not formally replied to the Complaint, Stanworth Development Limited v. E Net Marketing Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2007-1228.

In the event of lack of a response, the Panel may – as appropriate – accept the provided factual allegations in the Complaint as true, Belupo d.d. v. WACHEM d.o.o., WIPO Case No. D2004-0110.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Policy requires the Complainant to demonstrate that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly like a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant is the owner of the trademark ELECTROLUX as evidenced in the annexes to the Complaint. In addition to this, it has been established in previous decisions that ELECTROLUX is considered a well-known trademark, see, e.g., Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. Mister Manager, WIPO Case No. D2008-0823 and Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. Emre Simsek, WIPO Case No. D2012-2316).

Regarding the addition of the word "servis" (meaning "service" in English), the Panel notes that it is now well established that the addition of generic terms to a domain name does not necessarily distinguish the domain name from a trademark (see, e.g., Aventis Pharma SA., Aventis Pharma Deutschland GmbH v. Jonathan Valicenti, WIPO Case No. D2005-0037; Red Bull GmbH v. Chai Larbthanasub, WIPO Case No.

D2003-0709; America Online, Inc. v. Dolphin@Heart, WIPO Case No. D2000-0713). The addition of the word "servis" does not therefore prevent the disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark. On the contrary, the nature of the dictionary term used would tend to reinforce consumers' erroneous conclusion that the website to which the disputed domain name resolves is somehow legitimately included in the supply and service system established by the Complainant under its ELECTROLUX trademark, see, e.g., Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. Ibrahim Yurtcu, WIPO Case No. D2013-0796.

It is also well accepted that a ccTLD may be ignored when assessing the similarity between a trademark and a domain name (see, e.g., VAT Holding AG v Vat.com, WIPO Case No. D2000-0607).

The Panel finds that the Complainant has therefore met its burden of proving that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).

In view of the above, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has met the requirements under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. It is, however, the consensus view among UDRP panelists is that if the complainant makes a prima facie case that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests, and the respondent fails to show one of the three circumstances under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, then the complainant is deemed to have satisfied this element of the Policy. Belupo d.d. v. WACHEM d.o.o., WIPO Case No. D2004-0110.

In this case, the Complainant has made prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant confirms that it has not licensed or authorized the Respondent to use its ELECTROLUX mark in any fashion, that the Respondent is not an authorized licensee or reseller of the Complainant's goods, and that there is no connection between the Respondent and the Complainant. Additionally, there is no evidence on the present record, or in the publicly-available WhoIs data, to indicate that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name.

The Panel also accepts that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Panel notes, based on the available record, that the Respondent does not appear to have any relevant registered trademarks or trade names and that no license or authorization of any other kind has been given by the Complainant to use its registered trademark. Therefore, in the absence of any license or permission from the Complainant to use any of its trademarks or to apply for or use any domain name incorporating those trademarks, and in light of the Panel's findings below and under the third element, it is clear that no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the disputed domain name could be claimed by the Respondent. Guerlain S.A. v. Peikang, WIPO Case No. D2000-0055.

Pursuant to Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., supra, in order for a reseller to be regarded as having a legitimate interest in registering a domain name which incorporates the complainant's trade mark, (i) the respondent should actually be offering the complainant's goods or services via the website attached to the disputed domain name, (ii) the respondent must use the website to sell only the trade marked goods of the complainant, (iii) the website must accurately disclose the respondent's relationship with the trademark owner and (iv) the respondent should not try to corner the market in domain names which incorporate the complainant's trademark.

In our case, the Panel visited the disputed domain name on November 27, 2017, and found that the disputed domain name resolves to a website in Turkish that offers services for Electrolux products and contains the Complainant's trademark, the website did not appear to disclose any information regarding the Respondent's relationship with the Complainant. Specifically, the Complainant alleges that there was no visible disclaimer on the website. As such, Internet users may have been misled to assume that the website was run by the Complainant itself, or that there was some affiliation or sponsorship between the Parties. In fact there is no disclaimer or accurate disclosure of the relationship between the Parties. The Respondent therefore conveys the false impression of being an authorized Electrolux service center. Furthermore, the Respondent uses the word "servis" ("service") clearly suggesting a business relationship with the Complainant (see section 2.5 of the WIPO Overview 3.0).

The requirements of 4(a)(ii) of the Policy are fulfilled and consequently the Panel finds in favor of the Complainant on the second element of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel is aware of the reputation and recognition of the Complainant's trademark ELECTROLUX. The Panel is convinced that the Respondent must have known of this trademark when registered the disputed domain name. This is likely as the disputed domain name was registered well after the Complainant's trademark ELECTROLUX had become recognized in the world. This is in particular likely as the mark ELECTROLUX is also well-known in Israel and Turkey, where the Respondent is apparently located. Therefore, the Panel, in accordance with previous decisions issued under the Policy, is of the opinion that this knowledge may be considered, in appropriate cases, also an indication of bad faith (see, e.g., Parfums Christian Dior v. Javier Garcia Quintas and Christiandior.net, WIPO Case No. D2000-0226).

Moreover, the Respondent has registered at least one other domain name incorporating a well-known brand, namely FRANKE. For the purposes of the third element of the Policy, such pattern of abusive conduct shall be further evidence of bad faith registration.

By registering the disputed domain name, the Respondent was clearly attempting to divert Internet traffic, intended for the Complainant's website, to its own website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source or sponsorship of the Respondent's website. Such use constitutes bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. (See, e.g., AB Electrolux v. Pablo Rodriguez Guirao, WIPO Case No. D2011-0729; Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. Li Yong, WIPO Case No. D2012-1782; and Costco Wholesale Corporation, Costco Wholesale Membership, Inc., Price Costco International, Inc. v. Scott Williams, WIPO Case No. D2009-1698.)

Therefore, in light of the above-mentioned circumstances in the present case, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith and that the Complainant has established the third element under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <electroluxservis.co> be transferred to the Complainant.

Gökhan Gökçe
Sole Panelist
Date: November 29, 2017